Me, I’m just a disloyal American liberal who is a traitor for pointing any of this out. Obviously I don’t support the troops because I disagree with what Bush has done with them. Right? Question the policies of this administration and you’re not really supporting the troops, are you? No. Supporting the troops means sending them into a preemptive war on faulty intelligence and miscalculation to search for WMDs that the UN weapons inspectors couldn’t find (coincidentally because they weren’t there). Supporting the troops is giving Ahmed Chalabi and friends money to run a disinformation campaign overseas, and then falling for your own hype, realizing only too late that Chalabi is only interested in Chalabi and is willing to work with anyone, including Iran.

That’s supporting the troops.

Here’s a message for anyone who wants to tell me that supporting the troops has anything to do with supporting Bush’s catastrophic (in his own words) policies. The military has a duty to follow the orders given them by their commanders (something Bush should have learned earlier in life). It works the opposite way for the American people who (traditionally) put the president in office. Only by speaking our minds to the fullest extent and questioning the president when he is misusing his power can we support the troops. Anything less than that is neither true to our morals, nor is is honorable behavior toward our military.

If we recognize that there is a possibility that the military could be used poorly, it becomes obvious that before you hold office you must show that you can take that possibility and that responsibly seriously. The above vitriol is meant to raise an emotional response, but makes no sense. A man shouldn’t just “believe in his heart” that the military can do no wrong. He should strive to make it so that our government does not misuse its power.

If you want to yell “Rah, rah, rah!” at a rally led by someone like Zell Miller and his ilk, please go to a football game where lives aren’t at stake. Go somewhere where you can say “loyalty to the team is all” and disregard the consequences, because the consequences are confined to the sport season.

“A tragic milestone was reached Wednesday. The American death toll in Iraq topped 1,000. But America is less, not more secure as a result of the occupation of Iraq.

“Saying that does nothing to diminish the honor due the fallen. They served their nation when called and gave their lives for their country. […]

“The president speaks only of his steadfast leadership and intent to “stay the course.” But that course includes no coherent plan to join with other nations to bring about a world that produces fewer terrorists. There is only the rote and wrong insistence that invading Iraq was a crucial to the war on terror. It wasn’t on Sept. 11, but it is now.”

Bush’s screwup does not qualify him to fix things. It disqualifies him. Someone else won’t be cornered by past mistakes, or having to repeat ‘stay the course.’ Someone else doesn’t have to prune the tree of options based on personality, embarrassment, or stubbornness. Someone else can use intelligence rather than attitude to decide the best course. Kerry wants to be that person. Kerry can be that person. If only the American people can put aside platitudes and let him.

That so many young people are willing to stand up when they are told they are needed to defend our country is astounding and humbling. The least they are owed is to have their lives risked only when absolutely necessary, and with the proper planning.